On This Page

Sort by

This list shows the properties that you can sort by. Click on to sort in ascending order and to sort in descending order. The properties that you're currently sorting by are
shown at the top of the list. Click on to remove a sort and or to reverse the current sort order. Click on the icon to remove all the sorting. Note that sorting can significantly slow down the
loading of the page.

View

Choose what information you want to view about each item. There are some pre-defined
views, but starred properties are always present no matter what the view. You can
star properties by clicking on the icon. The currently starred icons have a icon; clicking on it will unstar the property.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Altmann
on 4 December (HL3783) that the Personal Independence Payment assessment criteria
were "designed in close collaboration with disabled people and disability groups",
whether they will now take into account the responses to the consultation held separately
between 24 June and 5 August 2013 on the moving around criteria.

<p><strong>The full public consultation on the ‘Moving around’ activity of the mobility
component closed on 5 August 2013. We received more than 1,100 responses. We carefully
considered all the responses received, including the suggestions for alternative approaches.
We published our response to the consultation on 21 October 2013.</strong></p><br
/><p><strong>We believe the assessment criteria, including the 20 metres distance,
are the best way of identifying those whose physical mobility is most limited, so
we did not make any changes. However, we have strengthened the measures around the
reliability criteria – we recognise these are a key protection for claimants.</strong></p><br
/><p><strong>Our response to the consultation is annexed to this answer.</strong></p>

<p>In the last 12 months there has been an increase of 238,000 disabled people in
work. That is really positive, but there is more to do.</p><p> </p><p>We have been
very clear that the gap between the employment rates of disabled people and non-disabled
people remains too big and have committed to halving it.</p><p> </p><p>Government
cannot achieve this ambition alone so we are working closely with disabled people,
their organisations, employers and employment support providers to develop our strategy
to enable more disabled people to get into, remain in and progress in work.</p><p>
</p><p>The Disability Confident Campaign, which actively promotes the Access to Work
scheme, is key to supporting employers in working with Government to halve the disability
employment gap.</p>

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, with regard to the compensation payments awarded
under the Mesothelioma Act 2014, what is their estimate of (1) the difference between
the actuarial calculations on which they based their assumptions for payments of compensation
and the payments now being made by insurance companies; and (2) how much such companies
will save in each of the next 10 years compared with the original legislative assumptions.

<p /> <p>No actuarial calculations were carried out in relation to the payments that
would be made by the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme. The tariff table, which
sets out the rate of payment according to age at diagnosis, is based on an average
of similar payments made under civil compensation.</p><p> </p><p>The Impact Assessment
published in March 2014 estimated that £93.7m would be paid out by the Scheme in the
first year of its operation, and £412.4m would be paid out over the first 10 years.</p><p>
</p><p>Initial application volumes were lower than anticipated so the amount levied
on the insurance industry for the period 2014/15 was £32m. It is too early to estimate
what the application volumes will be over the next 10 years given volumes received
to date. As this is a demand led scheme, the calculations for the levy are done afresh
each year. An upturn in applications to the Scheme would result in a higher levy rate
in future years.</p>

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the affordability
of a standard Fuel Direct rate of £3.70 for direct payments for arrears on fuel bills;
and whether in setting that rate they considered (1) allowing some customers to pay
a lower rate of direct deduction, and (2) allowing customers to pay by Fuel Direct
for ongoing bills when they are not in arrears.

<p /> <p>Third Party Deduction is a long standing scheme of last resort where all
other means of budgeting have been exhausted. Where the Secretary of State decides
that it is in the claimant’s best interests to order repayment of the arrears he can
do so. The scheme was introduced in the 1970’s to protect the vulnerable and their
family, whilst not adding to their financial burden.</p><p> </p><p>Fuel Direct is
set in legislation at 5% of their Personal Allowance, which is a fixed deduction of
£3.70 for each element of fuel debt. This is considered to be the most appropriate
level of repayment in order to clear the fuel debt arrears and to prevent enforcement
action.</p><p> </p><p>Each year the amount of Third Party Deduction is re-assessed
as part of The Social Security Up-rating Order.</p><p> </p><p>Once the arrears have
been paid a person will usually be taken off the Fuel Direct scheme. In exceptional
circumstances a person may be allowed to remain on the Fuel Direct scheme to help
ensure that they don’t get into debt again.</p><p> </p><p>However Fuel Direct is not
intended as a budgeting aid and the Governments main objective is to help people into
employment, whilst encouraging them to be responsible for their own financial affairs,
whether they are on benefit or not.</p>

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by George Eustice, Minister
of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 10 June (HC Deb,
col 136WH), who published the 1991 Health and Safety Executive report of an inquiry
into sheep dipping; and to whom it was distributed.

<p /> <p>The 1991 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report presented the findings
of a 1990 survey of sheep dipping and was published by HSE as an internal document
in May 1991.</p><p> </p><p>The report was discussed at a meeting of the then Health
and Safety Commission’s Agricultural Industry Advisory Committee (AIAC) working group,
Chemicals In Agriculture (ChemAg), on 10 July 1991. The ChemAg working group membership
included HSE, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and
other industry organisations.</p>

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of (1) the number of
people who have received compensation under the terms of the Mesothelioma Act 2014
since the Act came into effect, and (2) the number of people projected to receive
compensation in each of the next three years.

<p /> <p>The information requested is available from the attached Impact Assessment
for the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme which was published in March 2014 and
sets out the anticipated levels of claims over the first 10 years of the scheme.</p><p>
</p><p>The scheme has now been running since April 2014 with payments being made from
July 2014. We will publish statistics on the number of claims made in 2014/15 in due
course, and consider a review of the estimates made in the Impact Assessment in light
of this data.</p>

<p /> <p>The Disability Confident campaign makes the business case for recruiting
and retaining more disabled people and aims to increase the number of employers taking
positive action to be more disability confident. We are not able to measure the number
of disabled people moving into employment as a direct result of it, but the campaign
is an important contributor towards our commitment to halve the gap between the employment
rates of disabled and non-disabled people.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p>

<p>The Court rejected two of the three legal grounds brought by the claimants, finding
that their human rights had not been breached and not awarding damages.</p><p> </p><p>Where
the Court found that the historic delay for the two claimants was unlawful, they also
ruled that they are not “test cases” and it would be inappropriate to make wider findings.</p><p>
</p><p>The Court accepted that the Government had made significant improvements to
the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) process and there are now no inherent failings
in the system.</p><p> </p><p>As a result of these improvements, the average time taken
for a claimant to be assessed by an assessment provider has fallen by more than three
quarters since June 2014. In April 2015, the average new claimant was waiting 5 weeks
for their PIP assessment – well within the 16 week target set by the Secretary of
State.</p>

<p /> <p>This calculation was derived from an independent review commissioned by the
Department for Education.</p><p> </p><p>The information is available in the Department
for Education’s Relationship Support Interventions Evaluation, published in 2014.
This sets out a detailed explanation of how the savings were calculated using a cost
benefit analysis.</p>